On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:30:24AM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:06:01 -0300 > Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Any explanation why (old.base_gfn != new.base_gfn) case can be > > > omitted? > > > > (old.base_gfn != new.base_gfn) check covers the cases > > > > 1. old.base_gfn = 0, new.base_gfn = !0 (slot creation) > > > > and > > > > x != 0, y != 0, x != y. > > 2. old.base_gfn = x, new.base_gfn = y (gpa base change) > > > > Patch 2 covers case 2, so its only necessary to cover case > > 1 here. > > > > Makes sense? > > Yes. > > But didn't you change the flush in the if block modified by patch 2 > to kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot()? > > Although current implementation flushes everything, this may trigger > problem when we change it. > > Takuya Yay, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
